User talk:Mike Doughney/Archive/Final

Hello, Mike Doughney/Archive/Final, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

You've more than overdue for a welcome. Thanks for all your hard work over the last few months. We realy appreciate it.

Nice to see a sense of humour too, like in your recent edit to Teen Mania Ministries "fixed redundant redundancy". Good stuff. I hate redundancy, particularly when it is not needed.

Again, welcome! Blarneytherinosaur talk 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on User:Collect

Hello Mike. I went over Collects talk page and I'm not amused. He seems to have edit warred in multiple articles and gotten blocked twice. [1]. I will go over his edit history and prepare a RFC, be patient meanwhile. Also see: Wikipedia:Mediation#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation. In a RFC we will not be able to use any material from mediation. However, I do think we have enough even without those. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Collect is voluntarily surrendering the privileged nature of mediation by going to their friend who is an outside administrator: [2]. I was certain Collect would resort to such games when they couldn't answer my request for Verification nor Sources and i called them on the carpet for WP:TEND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:WABBITSEASON ten times in one day: [3] ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still around? I'll be filing the RFC shortly, can you sign it? Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woa, that was quick!! However, your endorsment needs to be under: "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute." Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. wasn't sure, will fix. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added new evidence: [4]. Please review your endorsement. If you still endorse the RFC, leave your endorsement. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute with respect to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect

Please fill out Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Evidence_of_trying_to_resolve_the_dispute and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Evidence_of_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute.

Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Uncertified_user_RfCs for further details. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since four editors have certified this RfC, Ncmvocalist comments here are irrelevant. Ikip (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

While I respect the fact that you feel exhausted by tendentious problem editors who engage in novel synthesis all the time, and that you feel the need to retire as a result of this sort of problematic editing, nothing justifies this sort of uncivil edit-summary [5]. A little bit more good faith in the users who are trying to resolve the disputes would certainly go a long way; we're all volunteers, and some of us have dealt with that sort of editing before and come out on top against such editors - but not by engaging in misconduct. If you don't want help and don't want to hang around the project, we can't stop you - but this sort of conduct will not be tolerated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Mike Doughney, every editor has the right to delete anything on their talk page at any time. If you don't like the messages that other users are putting on your talk page, and everytime you look at your talk page you get a bad feeling, delete those messages. There is no need to respond, no need to do anything.

Another option, When editors attempt to bring an argument to my talk page, often trying to personalize the argument, I simply move the comments to where the argument is going on. You could move all these comments to the RfC. Simply write above the comments: moved from User talk:Mike Doughney Ikip (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion

You are relevant and should be notified of the following conversation:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect#certified_names_of_users:_Mike_Doughney 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request for possible Representation in formal Mediation

Hello, Mike, i have been reviewing the basic guidelines of the formal Mediation process, and i have decided to take a (hopefully) more efficient approach. Please see my request for Benccc to be a Representative as we are disputants in common cause. This is a useful idea in the formal Mediation policies:

In common cause a group of disputant users can, in consensus, choose to dispute through mediation with a single disputant or another disputant group. Disputant groups may choose a representative from amongst them to serve as a spokesperson. It is sometimes helpful to have a single voice that represents the group; however, it is possible to have a mediation where all disputants take part.

All of my positions and arguments and comments (after removing all of my vitriol and impatience) generally tend to be similar to the concise and level-headed comments which have been written by Benccc. So if he agrees to be a "Representative" of our common cause, i could then quietly stand to the side and let him "do most of the talking". This would be more expedient, would help me to avoid my usual impatience and anger, and would probably move the whole formal Mediation process along much more quickly and smoothly. If you would like to consider this option, it might be the best way to return to the Mediation and then all of us would reach our goal of writing the best accurate neutral article. Certainly it would eliminate my tendency toward acrimonious exasperation, and i think we all ultimately want the same thing here. We all want quality writing which is neutral, and i think this might be a good way forward. Thank you ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]